Geowin Construction v Management Corporation: Setting Aside Expert's Decision in Construction Dispute

In Geowin Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Management Corporation Strata Title No 1256, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application to set aside an expert's decision regarding a construction dispute. Geowin Construction, the plaintiff, and Management Corporation, the defendant, had entered into a Settlement Agreement (SA) to resolve their differences, appointing an expert to assess sums due for work done and claims for defects. The defendant, dissatisfied with the expert's assessment, sought to set aside the award, alleging errors and failure to properly assess the work. The High Court dismissed the defendant's application, upholding the finality of the expert's decision as agreed upon in the SA.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside an expert's decision in a construction dispute, emphasizing the finality of expert determinations.

1.7 Decision Date

28 December 2006

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Geowin Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation)	Plaintiff	Corporation	Positive balance accrued	Partial	T S Oon
Management Corporation Strata Title No 1256	Defendant	Corporation	Application dismissed	Lost	Tan Chee Kiong

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
V K Rajah	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
T S Oon	T S Oon & Bazul
Tan Chee Kiong	Seah Ong & Partners

4. Facts

Geowin Construction was engaged by Management Corporation to carry out addition and alteration works.
A dispute arose regarding the completion and quality of the works.
Management Corporation made a successful demand on a performance bond provided by Geowin Construction.
Geowin Construction disputed Management Corporation’s right to call on the performance bond.
The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve their differences, appointing an independent expert.
The Settlement Agreement stipulated that the expert's decision would be final and not subject to appeal.
The expert assessed the value of work completed, liquidated damages, and the return of the performance bond amount.

5. Formal Citations

Geowin Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Management Corporation Strata Title No 1256, Suit 1209/2003, [2006] SGHC 245

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2006-01-11	Settlement Agreement signed
2006-02-23	Expert's report issued
2006-05-08	Application to set aside the award filed
2006-12-29	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Setting aside expert's decision
- Outcome: The court held that it may not intervene to set aside an expert's decision where no fraud or collusion is involved, emphasizing the finality of the expert's decision as agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2006] 1 SLR 634
  - [1976] 1 WLR 403
  - [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 175

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside expert's decision
Recovery of money due

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Construction Disputes
Arbitration

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Evergreat Construction Co Pte Ltd v Presscrete Engineering Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR 634	Singapore	Cited for the legal principles defining an expert’s role and responsibilities in dispute resolution.
Campbell v Edwards	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1976] 1 WLR 403	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that parties are bound by an expert's valuation if it is given honestly and in good faith, even if there is a mistake.
Baber v Kenwood Manufacturing Co Ltd and Whinney Murray & Co	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 175	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that parties accepting the opinion of an expert accept the risk of the expert being wrong or muddle-headed, but not dishonest or corrupt.
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1993] AC 334	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that parties who make agreements for the resolution of disputes must show good reasons for departing from them.
Shell UK Ltd v Enterprise Oil plc	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 456	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an expert's act is not binding if the expert has committed a material breach of instructions.
Standard Chartered Bank v Neocorp International Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR 345	Singapore	Cited for the principle that agreements on modalities for determining a matter should be upheld in the absence of any relevant public policy considerations.
Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thia Huat and Another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR 188	Singapore	Cited regarding the need to show a 'manifest error' to challenge the findings of a nominated valuer, but the current judgment clarifies the interpretation of 'manifest error'.
Tan Yeow Khoon v Tan Yeow Tat	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 486	Singapore	Cited regarding the principle that parties are bound by a nominated valuer's determination, even if wrong, except where there is a manifest error, but the current judgment clarifies the interpretation of 'manifest error'.
Jones v Sherwood Computer Services plc	N/A	Yes	[1992] 1 WLR 277	N/A	Mentioned as inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
British Shipbuilders v. VSEL Consortium plc	N/A	Yes	[1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 106	N/A	Mentioned as summarized by Justice Lightman.
Legal & General Life of Australia Ltd v A Hudson Pty Ltd	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[1985] 1 NSWLR 314	Australia	Cited for the principle that a valuation is binding upon the parties depending on the terms of the contract.
Holt and Another v Cox	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 23 A.C.S.R. 590	Australia	Cited for the principle that a factual error or consideration of matters which should not have been taken into account would not be relevant if the valuation was in accordance with the terms of the parties’ contract.
Arenson v Arenson	House of Lords	Yes	[1977] AC 405	United Kingdom	Cited in relation to the liability of an expert who negligently determines a valuation.
Sutcliffe v Thackrah	House of Lords	Yes	[1974] AC 727	United Kingdom	Cited in relation to the liability of an expert who negligently determines a valuation.
Nikko Hotels (UK) Ltd v MEPC plc	N/A	Yes	[1991] 2 EGLR 103	N/A	Cited for the principle that if an expert answers the right question in the wrong way, the decision will nevertheless be binding.
Ex parte Hebburn Ltd; Re Kearsley Shire Council	N/A	Yes	(1947) 47 SR (NSW) 416	Australia	Mentioned in the context of 'mistakes and mistakes'.
Sean Investments Pty Ltd v MacKellar	N/A	Yes	(1981) 38 ALR 363	Australia	Cited in the context of administrative law and mistakes.
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1986) 162 CLR 24	Australia	Cited in the context of administrative law and mistakes.
R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte 2HD Pty Ltd	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1979) 144 CLR 45	Australia	Cited in the context of administrative law and mistakes.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Expert determination
Settlement Agreement
Performance bond
Final and binding
Manifest error
Assessment
Construction dispute

15.2 Keywords

Construction
Expert Determination
Settlement Agreement
Singapore
Civil Procedure

16. Subjects

Construction Dispute
Expert Determination
Contract Law
Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Civil Procedure
Construction Law
Contract Law
Arbitration Law